Supreme Court Stays Karnataka HC Directions Constituting SIT, Ordering De Novo Probe Into KPSC Recruitment Scam

The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 1) stayed the Karnataka High Court's directions constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and ordering a de novo investigation into alleged irregularities in the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) Veterinary Officer recruitment scam.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi passed the interim order while hearing the Karnataka government's challenge to the September 21 judgment of the High Court, which had constituted an SIT to investigate alleged irregularities in the recruitment of 400 Veterinary Officers and related allegations concerning other KPSC recruitments.

The Court issued notice returnable on October 12 and directed the State to file an additional affidavit in a sealed cover setting out its objections, if any, to the officers appointed to the SIT. The State may also suggest alternative names for the team.

The interim stay applies to paragraphs 34(i) and 34(ii) of the High Court's judgment, which provide for the constitution of the SIT and a de novo investigation into the alleged crimes.

“In the meantime, the directions in paragraph 34(i) and 34(ii) shall remain stayed. Issue notice returnable on 12th October. By the next date, the state shall submit in sealed cover delineating the objections, if any, against the members of the SIT constituted under the order of the High Court. They may also suggest alternative names for the SIT”, the Court ordered.

During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for the State argued that the Crime Investigation Department (CID) was already investigating the cases and the probe was nearing completion. He submitted that there were no specific allegations against the CID officers investigating the present cases to warrant a fresh investigation.

Sibal opposed the direction for a de novo investigation, arguing that it would effectively require the investigation to begin afresh despite the work already undertaken by the CID. He also objected to the High Court selecting members of the SIT without seeking the State's suggestions.

Sibal raised concerns about the inclusion of Alok Kumar, Director General and Inspector General of Prisons, in the SIT. He referred to a separate CBI investigation that allegedly raised questions about Kumar's role in phone interception and tapping.

Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar for the respondents highlighted that the original prayer before the High Court was for a CBI investigation. He questioned the State's resistance to an SIT comprising State police officers and argued that the State should not dictate the composition of the investigating team.

“I am surprised that the state is here today saying its own officers cannot investigate. The DGP prisons is asked to investigate. The team is entirely theirs. The entire team has been picked from the state. How can the state object? That means they want to pick and choose the people who they want to investigate”, he submitted.

Parameshwar also submitted that the State had not notified the SIT or transferred the relevant records following the High Court's order. He argued that the State is required to comply with the High Court's directions.

The Court indicated that it was not inclined to interfere with the decision to entrust the investigation to an SIT but expressed reservations about the direction for de novo investigation.

Background

The High Court's judgment arose from petitions seeking a transfer of the investigations to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), as well as petitions filed by selected candidates seeking to quash the FIRs registered in connection with the alleged irregularities.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna declined to transfer the cases to the CBI but held that the investigations should not continue with either the CID or the jurisdictional police. Instead, he constituted an SIT comprising senior State police officers.

Crime No. 89 of 2026 was registered on July 24, following a complaint by Dr. Manjunatha, a veterinary doctor, along with 24 other candidates, concerning recruitment to 400 Veterinary Officer posts in the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department. The complaint alleged that middlemen had sought bribes of up to ₹80 lakh per post, with an advance payment of ₹40 lakh. It was further alleged that some candidates were provided with question papers and answers and assisted in manipulating OMR sheets.

Crime No. 78 of 2026, registered on July 10, relates to allegations concerning other KPSC recruitments, including the recruitment of Industrial Extension Officers and Gazetted Probationers. The petitioners before the High Court, including BJP MLA Basanagouda R. Patil Yatnal and the All-Karnataka State Students Association, had sought a CBI probe citing alleged irregularities in past recruitments and allegations involving the then KPSC Chairman and his daughters.

In its September 21 judgment, the High Court referred to past controversies involving KPSC recruitments, including allegations of manipulation of interview marks, irregular evaluation, question-paper leaks and favouritism.

The High Court directed the SIT, headed by Alok Kumar, to undertake a de novo investigation into both crimes and submit its final report within 100 days of commencing the probe. It also directed the SIT to submit progress reports every 30 days. The SIT was also directed to cooperate with the Enforcement Directorate, which has registered an ECIR in connection with the predicate offences.

The High Court kept pending the petitions filed by selected candidates seeking quashing of the FIRs until the SIT submitted its investigation report, and listed the matters for further hearing on January 5, 2027.

The state has challenged this order before the Supreme Court.